http://www.geeks.co.uk/7282-activisi...heap-games-you
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6226758...dlines;title;1
Statements made by Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard:
Quote:
In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we’ll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you’ll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today.
Quote:
This echoes a statement Kotick made last year when he explained the company’s lack of support for some new games, specifically ones that don’t lend themselves to sequels. Activision, Kotick said, has no interest in games that “don’t have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises.”
Quote:
And he’s not just setting his sights on Guitar Hero and WoW fans. Talking about upcoming and expensive Activision titles such as Modern Warfare 2, Kotick said: “if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further.”
Quote:
When he wasn't promoting the company's games or technology, Kotick was celebrating its laserlike focus on the bottom line. He pointed to changes he implemented in the past as being particularly beneficial, such as designing the employee incentive program so it "really rewards profit and nothing else."
Consider the statement directly above in the context of the following, in which they talk about improving facial movements to make a stronger visceral "emotional connection" with the gamer:Quote:
Jeetil Patel, Deutsche Bank Securities - Analyst
"What do you think the retailers' willingness these days is to hold inventory on the video game side? Are they building positions today or are they still very reluctant and very careful of how they are buying?"
Bobby Kotick, Activision Blizzard, Inc. - President and CEO
"I don't think it is specific to video games. I think that if you look at how much volatility there is in the economy and, dependent upon your view about macroeconomic picture and I think we have a real culture of thrift. And I think the goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks that we brought in to Activision 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."
"I think we definitely have been able to instill the culture, the skepticism and pessimism and fear that you should have in an economy like we are in today. And so, while generally people talk about the recession, we are pretty good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."
It's hard to fathom how the CEO of a company can get away with openly exhibiting such unabashed disdain for the people who make their product and buy their product. When other companies talk about micorpurchases or accesories, at least they only publically dicuss them as "optional content" that the consumer is being offered. Even if they have the same philosophy they don't expect to be able to get away with flaunting it. And who would brag about the culture of "fear and skepticism and pessimism" among its workstaff?Quote:
The executive said game makers just haven't reached a point yet where the mouth movement and facial animation of game characters is good enough to establish a compelling emotional attachment from the player.
To remedy that, Kotick noted a real-time rendering and mouth movement technology Activision has been working on. He showed a clip of the technology, saying it could represent nothing less than a transformation of the medium. While Kotick said the technology wouldn't surface until the next generation of games, he did say it would be ready before the next generation of hardware.
Yes, video game making is a business, and it should stay a business whose goal is to make profit. But when you speak of taking all the fun out of making video games along with hiring "packaged good folks," you're talking about taking the life out of the finished products themselves and forcing gamers to subsist on safe bland derivative conventional titles that bring nothing truly new while being bled dry by paying high prices for scraps of DLC at a time. And then they talk about making them more appealing by adding more realistic graphics that enahance the emotional connection to the game, as though that will be enough to distract gamers from conventional drab gameplay.
I can't see myself spending any money on Diablo III or Starcraft II upon initial release, I'm not intereted in Modern Warfare II, and I'm definitely cancelling my subscription to WoW, with which I have lost interest anyway. Though I know it will make little difference if I don't contribute to the company's profit, it is all that I can do as a consumer to voice dissent.
Thankfully there are other slightly less evil companies (or companies with enough respect for their customers that they disguise their evilness) that also publishing games that capture my fancy, like *gasp* EA.
The only thing that scares me is that Bobby Koteck's strategy will be profitable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is people's willingness to stay faithful to a gaming franchise even when its sequels are lackluter. Also, a company as enormous with as many big-name franchises as Acitivision Blizzard can potentially set gamers' expectations rather than meet them.
